WrigleyField 22

And that would all be really short sided if you thought there was a potential franchise QB who just wasnt going to produce enough in year 1 to cool the hot seat.

I agree, although I'd say the office earned my loyalty while MRA Ted never did, I just gave it away like a whore. I hate that I watched most of that show, but I don't regret watching the office. NPH is what kept that show chugging to a large extent. I'll at least use the excuse that starting around season 4 it was a show my now wife and I started watching together, so it just became our weekly Monday(?) tradition.

HIMYM definitely gets a lifetime acheivement award next to the Office of good show turned bad that I finished to the end. As far as longevity, they take the cake. The good ran out of HIMYM much earlier than it did for the office, and it never came close to the high levels. Agreed that its peak was much higher, but both had that element of stubbornness to watch to the end, even though it sucked. The Office also at least rewarded with a decent finale.

HIMYM definitely gets a lifetime acheivement award next to the Office of good show turned bad that I finished to the end. As far as longevity, they take the cake. A lot of other shows I've actually seen every episode of that weren't really good shows, also weren't bad shows, IMO, but got canceled after pretty short runs. (Better Off Ted, Jericho, Pushing Daisies). They werent shows destined for greatness, but didnt last long enough to decline and lose my interest/viewership the same way other run of the mill shows that somehow keep lasting. Those shows are also all aired during a time when I had much more free time to sink into TV viewing. Now i find it hard enough to keep up on actually great TV.

Cavemen. Luckily that amounted to 3 wasted hours of my life only as it was canceled after 6 episodes. I'll have to think on an answer for a show that made at least a full season run.

Eh, I dont think theres any position overall safer than any other. Plenty of busts at every spot. And none, except possibly edge rusher carry any type of reward close to hitting on even an above average QB.

Rofl, I thought you were dropping this tattoo bit?

Sure, if the concept is that you're talking yourself into a QB in the top 5 then it's not a good idea. But I like Trubisky and I think he's not a reach. The analysis that was put out last week was on QBs taken after the top 2 picks. Like Raw was pushing, a lot of those guys that failed were the 3rd or 4th QBs taken. The ones taken at the very top have a decent hit rate. If the Bears can get their top guy or are sold on their number 2 guy then this is probably the best shot they're going to get. If they go mid-round guy it's almost a hope and a prayer. It's the most important position in sports and the quicker they find it the better. Taking one guy you're not fully sold on each year seems like a great way to stack mediocre players and still not have anything at the position 3-4 years from now. Outside of a Luck/Manning/Leaf/RG3 situation where there's a clear consensus, there's not enough certainty in it for me when you can much more easily find a certain and instant/near-instant level of impact at another position. Your aversion to first round QBs is as weird as raws insistance that the Bears draft one this year. There's a pretty strong correlation still with draft spot and success across the board. Yea, QB has a higher fail rate across the board (mainly because its hard to fall in the middle ground), and pure quantity is not a bad strategy to get a hit. But the top of the draft is still your best bet. And after roughly pick 100 the number of good starters is basically zilch except for the biggest exception ever.

But what are the chances they draft a 1st round QB who plays and looks good but still put out a 6 win team? How and why would that happen? Now take that scenario, where this hypothetical 1st round QB plays well but the team does poorly and Pace gets the opportunity to overhaul the coaching staff one last time. You got yourself a QB that somehow played well but the team stunk and he has to start all over with a new system, a new head coach who may not be enamored with the guy and that coach will be given time to make the team better along with the freedom to decide who the starting QB will be in 2018. You are asking for a mess. I'm not saying they have to win 9. I am saying there is no good reason why they can't. It would probably take another year of 19 IR and falling on the short end of 1 score games. Maybe even a late collapse where said star rookie QB is leading us into WC playoff contention and then gets hurt like week 13 and we lose out. I don't think that all is likely, but if that somehow was the scenario laid out, I'd feel pretty good still about sticking with Pace.

And I wouldn't be opposed to Trubisky winning the job, but some legit competition could hypothetically be good for both guys.

I'm saying I don't care if they get to the 9-10 win territory next year. And if they don't, if they draft a QB, play him for half the season and end up with 6 wins or something and the QB looks good for the future that's fine for me. If they go defense in the first, play Cutler another year, and end up with 9-10 wins but have no QB for the future I think that's a worse position. So basically, I think the fans ought to be taking a long term view. The "you've done a bad job building a team" if it takes more than 3 years to get to winning is dumb. There is pretty much just Kyle Long as a holdover from pre-Pace, and they've got no QB. If you want to say that it's a really bad job building a team if they don't create an entire playoff team with 3 drafts and free agency then I think you've got some high expectations. This is like a public company, where you can run it looking just at the next quarter to appease the shareholders and keep your job, or you can look at the long term view. A lot of times you exchange mediocre for the short and long term for good in the long term. If they get a QB that can win for the long term then you've basically got something the Bears have never had, and set up to be really good when the rest of the team is ready. This would be my preferred route. This is a ridiculous assertion. This isn't at all like a public company where you look quarter to quarter, if it were this front office would have been ousted long ago. You are blinded by the Cubs situation. Football isn't baseball. It doesn't take 6 years to build a team. While I agree with you in general, I would agree with Thrillo's hypothetical that a 6 win season where it looks like we ID'd a franchise QB would be a better overall position than winning 9-10 games with some stop gap and still no long term answer at QB. And under that scenario I'd give Pace the opportunity to get one more HC hire even though 15-33 is usually enough to get a GM fired.

Can we still keep Jay for a year and try and compete while giving Trubisky time to develop? <600 NCAA pass attempts and then rushing into a 3-13 team with a coach on the hot seat does not sound good developmemt situation. Although if all that ends up being true/consensus about Trubisky, he probably is going 1 or 2, if not to Cle or SF, then in a trade.

Assuming he receives a clean bill of health (apparently rehabbing very well) and doesn't have any setbacks with the shoulder in TC, I guarantee he'll be starting somewhere next year. I'd say its somewhere between these two statements. There's certainly several possible landing spots, but also each team could probably come up with a reason not to take Cutler, or find a better alternative. The biggest factor is probably when the Bears cut him. If its early March, there is a much better chance he lands on his feet with a secure starting gig than if he's cut in late April or after.

Wait you need to find out more about AJ McCarrons chest tattoo before endorsing? :-k

On one hand I'd be excited, but also just anxiously be waiting for him to break.

clayton was predicting romo to the bears yesterday idk why he wouldn't go to denver or why they wouldn't be after him but apparently they're happy with siemian Yea hard to imagine Denver not going after a FA QB and not getting whoever their first choice is. Bears might need to trade for Romo if thats what they want. What is everyone speculating about Bradford. I'm sure hes going to get a bog payday now that he stayef healthy and led the league in completion %

So go the Sam Bradford route? That's interesting. Literally hoping for a late preseason QB injury is an awful plan, but they could go through the FA and draft before making a decision on Cutler, for sure.

Romo Cutler camp battle!

Anyone streaming this? Don't have my headphones at work...

I mean they are in no rush to make any decision on him, but I would basically treat him the same way as the slew of UDFA and late round picks who have seen extended time in the defensive backfield. Intetesting bodies that dont hold you up from making FA/draft upgrades.

Wow, surprised about the OL coach - long history with Fox.

At this point, I'm fully expecting to see him dealt for a late rounder, whether we agree or not. That honestly seems optimistic.

no more "same old cubs" when something even a little bad shows signs of happening. this is my favorite one. Is "Cobs" officially retired now?

What's wrong with Cousins? He'd probably be the best QB this team has ever had. Given that the Bears have never drafted or developed a good NFL QB, and this current coaching staff doesn't inspire much confidence in that regard either, I'm not sure why they should be deadset on overdrafting a prospect or trading valuable currency for an unknown like Garoppolo. If Cousins is actually available, they should go after him. For Cousins, a lot would have to do with contract structure for me. If Pace keeps hitting on draft picks, we'll eventually need cap space again to retain good players and we want his deal to be as friendly as possible in 2019 and beyond. If Redskins make any decent effort to retain him, theres no chance he leaves for our situation though. But of he hits the open market he could become the top paid player in the game (for a year at least)

To expand on the last few points. Three of the internal options have a combined 7 starts, and thrown less than 300 NFL passes. One has ended the last two seasons on IR. The other went from looking like a possible backup to questioning if he even belongs on a roster. The third made such a small impression, his HC apparently didnt know he had him in training camp for the past two seasons. And again, none are currently under contract, though, thats mainly formality as any could probably be brought back will little guaranteed money. That leaves us with Hoyer, external FA, and the draft. External FA or trade candidates are likely to carry a cap cost or acquisition cost you apparently agree is not worthwhile. If someone is available at a reasonable cost I have no idea why they'd willingly choose the Bears over a clear ready made situation in Denver, so the Bears could probably get the second best option at best. Of the college guys, while early in the evaluation process, none look prepared to start day 1. And the Bears could still have to settle for their second choice if they were set on drafting a QB. And you've established how important it is for you that the Bears to draft their #1 target. So back to Hoyer. If we accept Jay's 2016 as the new norm, you still have to accept Hoyer's 2016 as his new norm (where he obliterated his previous best completion rate, int rate, and sack rate), for him to be a clear better option. If you take career average Hoyer, its basically a dead heat with 2016 Cutler, again factoring in no improvement from 2016 Jay. Still theres probably a scenario where thats an "okay" outcome, but theres also literally zero reason to rush into the conculsion where Jay is gone because his contract is so flexible. Hoyer probably would take guaranteed money, possibly past 2017. He also could also try to negotiate himself into a better situation if the Bears don't close a deal before their exclusive negotiating period. Which is all not to say Jay should definitely be back, or even be greater than 50% chance at being back. But the Bears position doesn't really allow them to he firm inany one QB outcome unless its to conceed 2017 as another lost season.